MNAME not a listed NS record

Dave Warren lists at
Thu Jan 17 07:13:40 UTC 2013

On 1/16/2013 13:53, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> True, but I don't see much utility from a nameserver which can be dynamically
> updated but not queried.

It *can* be queried, it's just not ideal as the machine has a fair 
amount of load and has fairly high latency. Since I have secondaries in 
colocation facilities with available resources, it makes more sense for 
them to handle external queries.

I'm also not sure where you're getting dynamic updates from, but we 
don't do any dynamic updates through BIND at this time.

> Sure.  In which case, why publish an internal-only machine into the public
> DNS via your SOA record?

Because it is actually the master, and from what I can tell, the slaves 
will check against the MNAME to confirm whether they're up to date or not.

(Yes, notifies will usually take care of this. Usually.)

> Someone else made mention of a "stealth master",
> but my definition of that is an internal machine which is not visible in
> any publicly published records.

Strictly speaking, it's not internal-only, it's just on a slower, 
occasionally overloaded connection which will result in some percentage 
of requests taking significantly longer to answer. It's also on a 
somewhat overloaded server, so it just makes more sense to push external 
traffic to more ideal services.

Dave Warren

More information about the bind-users mailing list